Politics

For now, the tide of Syria battle in Congress is running against Obama

By Andrew Malcolm09/06/2013 11:04 AM ET

President Obama, who's over in Russia today not officially talking to President Vladimir Putin, has canceled next week's fundraising trip to California.

That's something he didn't even do a year ago next Wednesday night when four Americans were murdered in Benghazi by terrorists who had nothing to do with a YouTube video. And it's another sure-sign that he's in trouble on his congressional vote to authorize attacks on Syria for using chemical weapons on rebels. Will Obama actually deign to lobby members?

Thursday one more representative changed his mind.

Michael Grimm, a Marine veteran of Iraq and undercover FBI agent, had said last weekend that he would support the president's war wishes. The first term Republican, who represents New York's Staten Island and part of Brooklyn, gave in to constituent pressure against U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war.

"Now that the Assad regime has seen our playbook and has been given enough time to prepare and safeguard potential targets," Grimm said, "I do not feel that we have enough to gain as a nation by moving forward with this attack on our own.”

All reports from Capitol Hill indicate a massive amount of skepticism there, if you can imagine such a thing for a Nobel Peace Prize winner seeking to start his second war.

That centers on Obama's claims that the U.S. must launch a limited, narrow attack on regime targets to make a moral statement against the use of chemical weapons. In another of his infamous promises, the Democrat says no U.S. ground troops are needed, as if one side in a war determines its breadth and scope.

There are several reasons for growing opposition: Members are just back from home districts where, all polls indicate, about 60% of Americans oppose any U.S. involvement. Fresh in members' minds is the 2010 electoral slaughter endured by congressional Democrats when they ignored polls showing deep opposition to ObamaCare and obeyed the president's request to pass it anyway.

As a result of John McCain's fervent lobbying, the Senate Syria authorization was broadened from a limited strike to tipping the balance in the war against the Assad regime, despite uncertainty about the fragmented rebel forces, including al Qaeda.

That measure passed the committee in a 10-7 vote, with two staunch liberals voting No (Tom Udall and Chris Murphy) and newly-elected Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey courageously voting "Present."

The upcoming vote has split both political parties. The top two House Republicans, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, say they'll support the president's request, but as a matter of conscience will not pressure their majority's members one way or the other.

AP (Gen. Martin Dempsey.)

Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi, who efficiently delivered so many crucial votes for Obama until the 2010 midterms, said she too supports the president but is "not exactly leading the charge" to lobby colleagues.

Classified briefings for members seem ineffective so far. "I think that there's a long way to go for the president to make the case," said New Hampshire Democrat Carol Shea-Porter, "and it does seem as if there's a high degree of concern and leaning no."

Many members are guarding their inclinations carefully, pending more hearings. A Washington Post tally Thursday found 24 senators opposed or leaning that way, 23 in favor and 53 professing indecision. The president needs 50 votes, plus the vice president's tie-breaker.

The House side is much closer with 205 opposed or leaning that way, just 12 votes shy of the number needed to deny Obama's request. Another 142 claim indecision and only 24 are in favor.

Another reason for the measure's headwinds is Obama's lame leadership. Although he made the red line threat 13 months ago and now denies it, only last Saturday did he announce his decision to seek congressional authority, as required by the Constitution. He's at the G-20 economic summit in Russia until tonight.

That means his team must do a lot of fast convincing, even as members hear from vociferous opponents and see videos of anti-Assad forces executing prisoners and claiming to have used chemical weapons themselves.

When threatened, Obama's go-to move is A Speech. He hates audience-free Oval Office addresses. So, watch for a speech soon as an attempted momentum-changer but avoiding conflicts with Monday Night Football and Wednesday's anniversary of the deadly Benghazi attack..

(UPDATE: In Russia, Obama says he will address the nation on Syria Tuesday.)

He won't confess the "limited action" is to save face from his own silly threat. But Obama will finally attempt a public explanation of what could conceivably be in America's national interest to stand offshore and do something militarily, but not much, in that land so convulsed by ugly feuding forces.

Although in congressional hearings Secretary of State John Kerry has painted the rebels as generally "moderate" and resorted to emotional descriptions of the horrendous images of gassed Syrian children, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was unable to describe exactly what such a retaliatory mission's objective would be.

Oh, one other thing. Obama and aides refuse to concede the possibility of a humiliating legislative defeat, like the one suffered in Parliament last week by British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Nor, revealingly, has President Obama promised to abide by such a negative verdict from Congress. Put that in your cruise missile and launch it anyway.